host it. things were watching, prime time. and don't forget to get a copy of how i save the world right there, plus on july 1st you will see a day in the life going to be available, go there, get the book, i will be back here tomorrow at seven, tucker carlson is up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." in early 2009, more than 12 years ago, the obama administration made a surprising, unprecedented accusation against westchester county, new york. according to the obama administration, westchester was an instrument of white supremacy, not the good liberals who live in westchester, don't accuse them of being bigots, the

problem with the buildings they lived in, although single-family homes, row upon leafy row, mailboxes, those were all examples of racism, literally structural racism and the only solution the obama people announced was much greater density, more subsidized housing complex, more high-rise apartment building, may be some drug vagrants living on the sidewalk. only if westchester county became more like the bronx to become nonracist. this is something of a surprise to the people who live in westchester most of whom are beautiful liberals. they didn't realize i had a white supremacy problem between 20,002,010 according to census numbers had risen by more than 50% so how could the county be racist? it didn't seem to make any sense. in court, the obama administration explain their

reasoning. they singled out westchester's practice of standard zoning referred to county regulations that restrict at the height of certain buildings and limited the placement of sewers to protect the drinking water. sounds reasonable but according to the obama administration, those were restricted practices. it's a legal term that means they were racist and because they were racist, the obama administration withheld more than $20 million in federal funds from westchester county. the county wanted the money, it would have to construct 10,000 low income, high density from a very nonracist departments so this battle didn't get a lot of news coverage but it went on for all eight years of the obama administration and in the end to its credit, westchester fought back because they could afford good lawyers and they eventually won in court but many places couldn't afford good lawyers so they had to relent. under pressure from federal ideologues, communities and

oregon in minneapolis for example with very little news coverage abolished single-family zoning. this all happened in recent years. the question is why is it happening? the goal isn't to eliminate racism, the goal is to eliminate suburbs. so rather than improve the lives of people who live in places, the idea is to destroy the lives of people who live in nice places. why would you want to do that? there's a very clear political reason. suburbs are typically purple politically. republicans can win just as democrats can but if your goal is to make the country and one-party state, you want to change this. you want to make suburbs into cities and if you did that, you'd win every time. democrats win cities. of the ten biggest cities from a democrats route nine of them. of the 50 bigots, they control two-thirds. doesn't mean they are good at running cities, they are not. but making the city's better is

hardly the point, winning elections is the point. democrats are happy to admit this. here's congresswoman from yesterday. >> this is about human and physical infrastructure. have been leading this fight, care economy as infrastructure, climate justice is infrastructure, housing injustices infrastructure, and public transit is infrastructure, so these bold investments must be made for workers and families in order for us to have a just, equitable, and robust recovery from this pandemic. >> tucker: housing justice. seems like a term ayanna pressley just made up. was it mean? of most people were asked, they would say means you're not allowed to prevent people regardless of what they look like world where they are from from moving into a specific neighborhood and that's true, you can't discriminate, you

shouldn't be able to. but that's not what she's talking about, she's talking about something very different saying if neighborhoods look different then by definition, they are racist. one is nicer than the other coming of to make it less nice or else that's not equity. the obama administration was on this in 2015, the department of housing and urban development under obama issued a final rule on what it called affirmatively furthering their housing. julian castro, the fair housing goal was simply to enforce the fair housing act which makes it illegal to discriminate housing sales for venting on the basis of race. again, that was on the book a long time and it's not controversial. but that law also requires local jurisdiction is to receive money to take steps to affirmatively further the goal of eliminating race discrimination in housing. this is a complex wordplay, but

here's what it means. under the obama administration, one important step further. according to julian castro, the existence of "concentrated poverty and urban centers as opposed to rural centers is de facto evidence of discrimination." as long as there is a place that is poorer than where you live, where you live is racist. on the basis of that assumption, they move forward and local jurisdictions were told to eliminate single-family zoning and increase density and if they didn't comply, they might lose millions of dollars in community development block grants. that was a very radical step and most americans were unaware was even happening handed people who live outside the cities are very against it including faithful democrats. none of them were for that. they wanted to live next to section 8 housing, they would've stayed in the first place so

people hate this idea. suburbs are very complicated organisms like everything humans build. they developed over a century, in some cases more than a century for good reason. they have federal ideologues come in and destroyed them was very threatening to people. they are not for that. again, even democratic voters are not for that and joe biden understands it, not a genius but he knows the fierce and when asked about it during the last campaign, he lied. watch bite and reassure you that it's racist even to suggest that he would want to change america suburbs here it is. >> look what he's doing now, the president. an awful lot of suburbanites or to site they're going to vote for me, at least the polling data suggests as opposed to him and talking about biden is going to send these folks out to suburbia and they will end up with houses in suburbia.

>> tucker: a lot of suburban voters did vote for joe biden partly on the basis of that claim, that he wasn't going to send a lot of people to the suburbs but i was a complete lie. now joe biden is preparing to do just that. at the time, his defense was that the rule by itself was not enough to restructure and eliminate suburbs for local communities didn't want to comply with the rules, they lose millions of dollars if they could survive. what biden didn't say is that the hud rule was just the first step in his new infrastructure plan which you can read online and you should. biden calls for dramatically expanding the federal government's power over suburbs. the plan calls for implementing the revision of something called the home act first proposed by cory booker of newark who was a lunatic and reckless. that goes much farther than anything the obama administration even attempted. it would cut billions of dollars to any local government ordinances that ban apartment

buildings from certain residential areas or set of minimum block size for a single-family home. so under this law are no longer in charge of how large your lot sizes can be. you have no control over anything. what's the point of having a local government at that point? but it goes farther. it doesn't simply cut off funding to suburbs that don't comply with its equity rules, it prevent states from getting federal transportation rates of any kind if they refused to allow high-res apartments or high density zoning and their suburbs and that is very different. unlike the hud grant, that is money they have to have. they can't refuse it. needs federal transportation dollars to fix their streets and highways and it is their money anyway. it is every year by citizens of their state. the biden administration is in no mood for negotiation with suburban homeowners with their

decent schools and crime free streets living in the 1950s america. according to the principles of equity, those people must be bigots by definition. they are living better than people in densely populated cities are living, therefore we must crush them. this is not a conspiracy theory. very soon, it could be the law. the bill. abolishing the suburbs is a major part of the biden administration is infrastructure plan. that legislation is still being negotiated tonight but already, the media are rushing to defend it. what shows they are, what liars. here is "usa today," for example. the largest newspaper, "biden's proposal would reward grants and tax benefits to cities that change zoning laws to bolster more equitable access to affordable housing. a house with a white picket fence and a big backyard for the fourth of july barbecue may be a

staple of the american dream but experts and local politicians say multifamily zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice, and the nation's growing housing crisis. really? if you wanted to fix the affordable housing crisis, maybe you would prevent foreign governments from buying up residential housing, which they are doing or black rock from buying up single-family homes and turning them into rentals. maybe you would make some effort to loosen the housing market a little bit, but they're not doing that. they're doing the opposite. you may ask yourself in the federal government really ban you from having a suburban home in a backyard celebrating the fourth of july with your kids all in the name of climate change and racial equity? and they prevent suburbs from having roads if they don't know the low-income housing projects? under existing civil rights law, a plan like this only works if the feds can prove that your roads are somehow racist and

that is exactly the case they are making right out in the open. it's not just the obama administration, pete buttigieg is now saying it, watch this. >> the interstate system was built to keep certain groups in in certain groups out. >> often, this wasn't just an act of the left. often, this was a conscious choice, racism physically built into some of our highways. >> tucker: eisenhower's interstate highway system is racist? i-95 is? tell us how, pete buttigieg. does he even believe that? no one believes that, just like leaving westchester county is bigoted, it's not about racism, stop with that. it's about power and for multinational corporations like blackrock, driving down the cost

of homes even further and building more apartment high-rises in the suburbs, that has been the goal of the most powerful people in the world for some time. in fact just a few years ago the world economic forum released a video explaining you will own nothing and you will be happy. what's less clear is why more self-described conservatives whose job is not only to conserve things aren't objecting to this. it's like they don't even notice it's happening. they are negotiating this bill. the future of the way americans live is at stake and you never hear them say that. he has noticed and has been covering this story may be more intensely than anyone and joins us tonight. thank you so much for coming on. so at the core -- correct me if i'm wrong and expand on this one thing, the core of this

legislation is a total remake using federal power of the way millions of americans live. am i overstating that? >> you hit the nail exactly on the head. zoning is the most basic thing. they know what should be the town square and quaint village and should have more of a natural field where you preserve trees and big yards and the federal government has no role in it. in fact, if residents of those towns wanted to change the zoning to do the kind of things you talked about, they could have done so. they don't. the voters don't want it. so the federal government is now printing money and bribing them to betray their own constituents with these, no one wants this, it's really important. people of both parties like living in the suburbs. that's why they move there. the majorities choose to live in the suburbs. so democrats have been talking

for decades about urbanism and mass transit ends going to be so efficient if we could all live in these concrete jungles because he won't have to run utilities lines and it will be very efficient and things like that and suddenly they are reversing course and saying it's actually bad to live in cities and there's a lot of minorities there and is not fair they have to live there because it is undesirable and hot and crowded and concrete really heats up in the summer and is not fair they don't have nature so let's all put them all in the suburbs, how are we going to fit them all? with large buildings so it's a equity in action, it means taking the worst outcome that no one wants and making sure everyone has it. >> tucker: that's it right there because if you are mad about doris, why don't you fix chicago? why not fix brooklyn? why don't they fix things rather than destroy them? >> there is no indication people from the suburbs want to go live in a housing project propped out in the middle of a single-family

neighborhood but what this bill would do is two things, you can put them anywhere. your next-door neighbor could literally be turned into an apartment building or let's say you live on a tenth of an acre but that's too small and that's why blackrock is buying up entire neighborhoods, you buy three or four of those and consolidate them and build an apartment building. the second thing is historically, some people prefer convenience, some people prefer privacy so this is all going to be doubled, dramatically increasing the population density with no debate. >> tucker: shocking. and republicans vote for this ought to be primary for real. thank you so much for joining us. so joe biden told us recently that the single greatest terror threat we face is not islamic terrorism as the government has told us for 20 years now since

2,001, it's the brutal mobs of race extremists which as you been paying attention you would assume it would be of course, they are the ones who bring the cities. no, it's none of that. the main threat we face as a nation's white supremacy, white american terror, law enforcement and intelligence agencies have concluded that. the president said it's an established fact and then he stopped. that's all that biden told us, he never said who those white supremacists were. didn't say what they plan to do, announced no arrests of any of them come i didn't name a single person or organization, so who is the white usama bin laden? joe biden didn't say. neither did his attorney general when he reiterated biden's claim several days later so the rest of us were left to wonder who exactly are these domestic terrorists? we still don't know the answer and neither do many longtime fbi

agents as we learned this week and we spoke to a couple of them, biden's claim is absurd, not even close to true red in recent years, there have been so few crimes that the fbi strongly consider dismantling the office that investigates white supremacist groups in the agents we spoke to put it, the number of cases the program manager had didn't justify his position, it was nothing for him to do. for decades by contrast, the greatest domestic terror threat has come from radical environmental groups, look it up. white supremacists meanwhile are at the bottom of that list. federal statistics prove it. americans are much more likely to die of a lightning strike that at the hands of a white supremacist. white supremacy may be ugly, but it is not a meaningful threat to the nation and claiming otherwise is alive. so why does the biden administration persist in telling that lie. it's a racial attack, obviously,

you tell black voters that republicans are in the kkk and they will keep voting for you and that's the idea, easier than fixing chicago or raising test scores which they should be doing but there's also a deeper significance for the biden administration is signaling a very real change to actual policy. the war on terror now ongoing for 20 years has pivoted, it is now being waged against american citizens, opponents of the regime. we saw this on display at january 6 and told you a couple of weeks ago based on the language of public at available indictments at the fbi has poor knowledge of the riots of the capital that day and the agents we spoke to confirm that is true. "the fbi had sources in that crowd, confidential sources, that's 100% certain. but is not just political protest the government is spying on coming yesterday we heard from a whistle-blower within the

u.s. government who reached out to warn us that the nsa, the national security agency is monitoring our electronic communication and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air. that's a shocking claim and ordinarily we would be skeptical of it, it's a crime. not a third world country, things like that should not happen in america but unfortunately, they do and in this case, they did. the whistle-blower who is in a position to know repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. there's no other possible source of that information. not. they did it for political reasons. the biden administration is spying on us. we have confirmed that. this morning, we filed an employer request asking for all information that the nsa and other agencies have gathered about the show. we did it mostly as a formality

and contact of the press office of both nsa and the fbi you don't expect to hear much back, that's the way that usually goes. only congress can force transparency on the intelligence agencies and they should do that immediately. spying on opposition journalists is incompatible with democracy. they are doing it to us and again, they are definitely doing it to us, they are almost certainly doing it to others. this is scary and we need to stop it right away. farmland is vital, you needed to eat, but you'll never guess who owns most of the farmland in the united states. it tells you a lot and we will tell you who it is straight ahead.

the boss is back baby! the difference in try and triumph... is just a little umph! upsees, i need upsees. i'm sure this isn't something money can't solve? what the fudge? oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh!

>> tucker: bill and linda gates are getting divorced, you may have read and needless to say or in the process of dividing their property. that property is not just a time-share in cabo in a place out in the desert. it's nearly 300,000 acres of american farmland spread across 18 states. it's enough to make bill gates the owner of more farmland than anyone else in america.

why does one man found that much farmland and why that man specifically? pedro gonzales is the editor and this is a key question of american culture. thank you for coming on. so we are told if you're rich, you can buy things. why should the rest of us be concerned by the fact that bill gates owns more farmland than any living person? >> today, 50% of american cropland is rented by farmers who don't own their land and it's going to grow. our children will have less access to the ownership and independence that entails. they are competing for scraps of their own country and the single largest private farmland owner in the united states but he does this all over the world. he funds projects and activities in the name of progressive causes of course but in reality, this role corporations in which

he has financial interests. he also does this with your tax dollars and is buying out your future with your money. another gates project is monopolizing the seeds for the use of intellectual property laws transferring control of food production at the hands of corporations. gates says he will have to get used to the taste difference while he enjoys the real deal paid for by his financial investments end of the synthetic stuff. this is a big deal and it's strange no one is talking about it because the g.o.p. still seems scared to confront it but it doesn't matter because you don't need to pass legislation to change the way that we eat, what goes our food if you simply can seize the land and the means of production. the monopolization and financial is asian of everything nullifies in the process. we have seen this before. prevent the wealthy from buying up too much land but they flaunted those laws, alienated and impoverished everyday citizen farmers who work there

tracks for slave labor and then it killed the middle class like we are starting to see it doing now. >> tucker: it just seems like the people in charge miss the basics so you have to worry about who controls the food, who has the guns, that's why the chairman levels it like a racial attack, it's a concern, he's got all the guns and bill gates has all the food, why does nobody get down to the things that actually matter? that matters. >> may be because they were so many people who have a vested interest in this and i think neither political party is really serious about this because in some way or another, both political parties can somehow profit from this. politicians ultimately are unified in the sense they have all had a vested interest in these things regardless of the rhetoric on outside. biden ran as a revolutionary socialist and maybe he is in a way but it's pretty clear that

corporations like blackrock are benefiting under the biden regime. in essence, we are seeing the same thing and it's consolidating all of this wealth and power and resources but no one seems to be doing anything and when that happens, it's happening at such a large scale, it's probably because a lot of people have something to gain from it. a lot of people that again are telling you they are on your side. >> tucker: stop criticizing the billionaires, they are good people, you are the problem, pedro gonzales. great to see you tonight, thank you so much. so obviously a firebrand, revolutionary and she was so distressed by the keweenaw and army insurrection of january 6th from of the white supremacist uprising that she's been in therapy over it ever since but here's the thing, you're the

hysterical one. she has told us that. we will be right back.

>> tucker: sidney cortez is of course are che guevara, a radical revolutionary hand in our success because she is afraid all the time. for example, cortez was nowhere near the capital during the insurrection of january 6th but in may, she conceded she has been in therapy ever since because just being in the same city as the insurrection was really traumatizing to her. >> you have this transition period of escalating violence which will be culminated on the sixth for which was extraordinarily traumatizing event and is not really being discussed. it's politically sensitive, no one wants to say boo-hoo but there are members of congress that served in war.

>> so you are doing therapy. >> i'm doing therapy, but also by just slow down. i think that trump administration had a lot of us in a very reactive mode. >> tucker: notice how she goes up on the last syllable of every sentence. did she get that from npr? listening to too much morning edition. anyway, despite the fact she is in therapy for insurrection she wasn't at, if you are worried about getting killed and increasingly dangerous cities, you are the one who is hysterical. >> we are seeing these headlines about percentage increases. i want to say that any amount of harm is unacceptable and too much, but i also want to make sure that this hysteria and we look at these numbers in context so that we can make responsible

decisions about what to allocate in that context. >> tucker: this is a member of congress like so many other cowards in congress who literally built a wall around the capital and called it the army after the insurrection of january 6th because they are cowards and yet she is saying if you're worried about getting pushed in front of a subway train were shot in times square as someone was yesterday that you are hysterical. it's worth noting that in that clip, she was talking to a congressman, also wants to defund the police and this weekend, "the new york post" caught him hiring private security for his own home. how shocked are you? 's candace owens shocked? we are about to find out. very happy to have her on tonight. it i don't want you to be hysterical about this crime thing, okay? by the way, can you get taxpayers to build a wall around

your house and call in the national guard to protect you as the rest of congress stayed? >> i cannot, unfortunately. and i will tell you, i have my from d.c. tonight and have to tell you she let a protest in front of the white house today about climate change in a crowd of people, 500 people. it's 98 degrees. her therapy must be working as my point. i can't imagine you are terrified to be around groups of people and then you host an insurrection outside of the white house so is just ridiculous. she is such an actress but i do want to point this out because it's so frustrating, people are looking at the situation going we all know what this is but to the republicans, they actually recognize that aoc is actually doing a very good job because what her job is is to act and to pretend and to distract while they were, the democrats are working on this program and i will say it again and very clear terms, they are working to

federalize the police force. democrats are working to federalize the police force. what aoc is doing right now is making sure people don't pay attention to the crime and pay attention to the white supremacy bogeyman. what is she doing, nothing at the border, yes, nothing at the border is kamala harris' job. make sure there was an influx of illegals coming in. the same time we are mocking her, we have to recognize that aoc is winning because she is accomplishing what she meant to accomplish, while at the same time they federalize the police force and they change the demographics of the country to make sure they can simultaneously federalize elections down the line. >> tucker: such a good point and it can't be said often enough and i fall for it too, so infuriating and childish that you get caught up in the details. i'm in therapy because of the insurrection and i miss the

point that you just made which was you are meant to get caught up in the details so you missed the big picture. thank you for saying that. candace owens, a very smart person, i appreciate it, thank you. so chaos just broke out had a day spa in los angeles when a biological man walked into the women's and kids section with his junk hanging out. most people went along with it but one woman decided to call the obvious the obvious and said it out loud, kind of a hero, got to be honest. we will show you her response next.

omega-3 from fish oil is an important nutrient for heart health. qunol's ultra purified omega-3, is sourced only from wild caught ocean fish, not farm raised and comes in an easy to swallow mini pill. the brand i trust is qunol.

[swords clashing] - had enough? - no... arthritis. here. new aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength? reduces inflammation? thank the gods. don't thank them too soon. kick pain in the aspercreme. >> tucker: the weak spot is -- their weekend, the reputation was put to the test. a man walked into the female kids section of the spa with his exposed. most people didn't say anything, nobody says anything anymore. nobody called names except one woman and she was not afraid to

point out the obvious. we probably redacted or [bleep] out some of the vulgarity in here which is key to her response, but it's still amazing. here's what she said about it. >> it's okay for a man to go into the women's section, show his penis around other young little girls, your spot condones that? is that what you're saying? like i asked. so he can stay here. he can stay there. what sexual orientation? i see a bleat. that lets me know he is a man. he is a man. he is a man. he is not no female. he is not a female to me. other women who were highly offended from what they just saw and you did nothing, absolutely nothing. and in fact you sided with him.

>> tucker: i saw a man. why don't more people say that? tammy bruce is the host of get tammy bruce on fox nation, very happy to have her on tonight. there's just something about someone noticing the obvious in a moment and it made my day, i don't know what else to say. >> in that case, the jerk had no clothes as opposed to the emperor and you can't ignore that but here is my concern, there's all kinds of rules and regulations which no doubt impact that business about who they can tell which room to use or bathroom or small room so that's a major problem but my concern here is that the average transgender person and i have perhaps more transgender friends than some of the people watching the program, they are also appalled. this is not what anybody wants for somebody who was going through the complicated experience of changing their

gender, that's a serious dynamic and you don't need -- the last thing you need or you're looking for is a confirmation of using a bathroom for walking in front of a bunch of women and girls to confirm your identity. i think the community and particularly, certainly the transgender community has got to tell that the clinical leadership to stop using us as this weapon to try to keep people divided but the problem is when gay marriage was approved and everyone said okay, let's do it, suddenly how are you going to raise money? there has to be another controversy. there is gay marriage, that's fine, but they still don't want you in the bathroom are in the spa. this has got to stop because none of the transgender's want this. no one is worried about bathrooms. that is a jerk who goes to do that. that is not someone who was looking at their identity and handling situations

appropriately, that was very different i now if people are drawing conclusions and making judgments about the gay community and the transgender community which they should not do because that is not what those people want, not what gay want and i love with that woman did. coming up, defending herself, defending miners just like adults are doing at school boards these days realizing they don't have their best interest in mind and don't care about children and i think right now, the transgender community needs to speak up about fairness than about what we really stand for, what the gay community does, what other minorities do and certainly what the transgender community likely stands for. >> tucker: what about everybody else? thank you. appreciate it. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> tucker: so you've seen all

these little outbreaks of racism on campus and a lot of them have turned out to be fraudulent, may be most, may be all. it certainly that was the case at smith college in massachusetts, a former staffer was there, resigned over it, a lifelong liberal and what she saw changed her life, she drains next.

>> tucker: in the summer of 2018, a highly privileged student claimed that she had been harassed by the school janitor and security officer for eating wild black so they did a big investigation and ultimately determine nothing racist has happened. but her accusations lingered in the air and in the end destroy the lives of several hourly

workers in the school didn't do anything to protect them. she's a lifelong liberal, worked at smith college as a librarian and seeing this changed her views forever. we had a long and fascinating conversation in the latest episode in here is it. >> the community immediately said we immediately apologized and i said okay, we are now assuming that this was a racially biased incident and i still didn't think too much of it, but then the student named two other employees who weren't involved, not the custodian who actually called campus police, two other individuals and named them on her facebook page and these two individuals especially one of them was harassed for a long time and the college

engaged in an investigation and even though the investigation found no evidence of racial bias -- and this was a very thorough investigation, 35 pages single spaced 70s pages of exhibits, they did everything, video, audio, went back and all the campus police records. they were very thorough and they found nothing and so in the meantime, these two other students -- two other staff members had been named by the student because she didn't know the identity of the person. >> tucker: what did she say about them? >> she called them racist cowards or something like that. sorry, i can't remember. >> tucker: said that they were racist. >> called them racist. here are the racist people who call the campus police on me. >> tucker: had they called the campus police on her? >> one of them hadn't even been in the building that day. he actually worked a shift and

then left before this incident even occurred and then jackie blair was working the dining room and she had actually the student had come into the dining room and knew the student was supposed to be there that was like okay, you can come in and the student got food and left and jackie didn't see her again for the rest of the day but the student i guess got it in her mind that jackie had somehow been involved in so as you stated, this was on "good morning america" so this was a big news item so to now have your face on a student's facebook page that has 1,000 eyeballs on it, you can imagine the vitriol directed towards these individuals. >> tucker: so you hear these stories but you never hear what happens afterwards when the hoaxes exposed, smith colleges behavior while hardly out of the ordinary for schools is shocking and jody shaw's take on is fascinating and worth watching.

pretty easy to get there. i hope you will. that's it for rest tonight. we will be back tomorrow night at 8:00 it every night, the show that is the sworn enemy of mine, smugness, and groupthink. thanks for joining us. we will see you tomorrow. sean hannity takes over from new york for the hour. >> sean: great show, thank you and welcome to hannity. we begin tonight with a fox news alert, another disappointing night for the trump obsessed haters conspiracy theorists, pretty much all other networks. it is official, political reporting and others president trump will reportedly not be charged with any crimes whatsoever in new york according to the manhattan district attorney office. full analysis, gregg jarrett will join us with a full report in a minute. also tonight, a shocking rise in violent crime here in new york city pti e